4 ms·

> In about half the U.S., including in cities like Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Long Island, Minneapolis, Nashville, Phoenix and Salt Lake City, we ca

> In about half the U.S., including in cities like Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Long Island, Minneapolis, Nashville, Phoenix and Salt Lake City, we can’t quit NAR individually or en masse, because NAR membership is required for agents to access listing databases, lockboxes, and industry-standard contracts. This sounds like they're making a case for cartel behavior. With the general unaffordability of housing, realtors are a good target right now. Not that they have anything to do with interest rates or have more than minimal impact on asking price, most people aren't going to think that far. That said, if Redfin can open up access better (and still securely!), this could work out in the long term too.

imglorp 3y ago
I once sold my house without a realtor. I hired an excellent RE attorney to handle only the paperwork for a flat rate -- way less than a realtor who wanted a whole percent to do the same job. Some parts of the system grudgingly took my money without an agent, like title search and home insurance and the buyer's agent who still got their 3 percent. Best case, if you can get it, would be the buyer and seller meet up without the agents and each has an attorney to help with legal.
- gumby 3y ago
  That's great! Unfortunately, often real estate agents will refuse to show FSOB houses (at least unless the buyer asks explicitly) so that they take longer to sell, thereby showing the "value" of the seller's agents. Perhaps Redfin should drop a line to Lina Kahn at the FTC.
  - hash872 3y ago
    Why would agents show a FSBO home for free? They're independent contractors on 100% commission, paying for their own health insurance and retirement- why would they work for free? Do you work for your employer for free? Buyers are free to find & view FSBO homes on their own, they can easily be found on Zillow and any other listing site. MLS even accepts FSBO listings for a flat $300 or so fee, no agent required
    - wbl 3y ago
      FSBO can pay a buyer agency fee also. The reality is that there is a cartel that props up the 3% to each side.
    - umeshunni 3y ago
      I assume they mean that the selling agent refused to show the house to someone without a buying agent.
      - gumby 3y ago
        There's no selling agent in a FSBO (For Sale By Owner). But the buyers' agents often boycott these houses because of course sometimes they are on the sales side.
        setr 3y ago
        The buying agent’s 3% cut is paid by the seller; if there’s no selling agent, do the buyer’s agent still get their cut? I’m not really clear on why it’s structured that way in the first place — why doesn’t the buyer pay his own agent directly?
    - gumby 3y ago
      > Why would agents show a FSBO home for free? I'm talking about BUYERS' agents refusing to show FSOB homes to the buyers they represent because sometimes they are on the sell side so they don't want to encourage FSOB. If they did represent the buyer in buying an FSOB house they'd still get the buy side commission...a short term gain that would piss off all the other agents in town. In an FSBO there's by definition no seller's commission.
      - hash872 3y ago
        This whole idea is totally fake (and I'm not sure you get the difference between a FSBO where the seller is paying a buyer's agent, versus one where they're not). Real estate is a high-turnover job with a bunch of stressed-out independent contractors on 100% commission. They don't care what 'other agents in town' think of them, and there's no giant collusion or conspiracy going on. They're all just trying to close a deal so that they can pay their bills and buy groceries every month. I assure they are not colluding with each other
- Johnny555 3y ago
  Same - I bought my neighbor's house with a real estate attorney. It was a simple sale, no loan -- I called a real estate agent I'd worked with in the past to ask how much he'd charge to act as my agent, he said he'd go as "low" as 1.5% -- that'd be over $7,000 for basically filling out a few papers. The seller said I could use an agent if I really wanted to, but it's a waste of money. We ended up going to a local real estate attorney in town, and paid less than $1000 in fees for the whole transaction - didn't even use an escrow company, I handed the seller a personal check in the attorney's office. (biggest check I've ever written, had to write the numbers small to fit in the small box on my check!)
- JeremyNT 3y ago
  > Best case, if you can get it, would be the buyer and seller meet up without the agents and each has an attorney to help with legal. I did this years ago, and it all went well. There's a substantial opportunity for Redfin here if they can connect buyers and sellers directly and charge a reasonable fee for all the boilerplate involved. At the time there wasn't an infrastructure to find homes with this selling arrangement so it was literally a "for sale by owner" sign in the yard. I'm curious about the specific wording here: > NAR membership is required for agents to access listing databases, lockboxes, and industry-standard contracts Is it possible even in places with this regulatory capture for them to facilitate direct sales? Is it only NAR "databases" "lockboxes" and "contracts" that are unavailable to them, and if Redfin brings their own for both buyers and sellers they're in the clear? I think real estate agents do add some value, after all there are things about properties that you won't know just by looking at online listings and having somebody familiar with an area out there doing some legwork for you is indeed a real job, but it's certainly not commensurate with the 3% of the entire transaction they're extracting.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
God, NAR is such a cartel I'm so surprised they haven't been slapped down already. My theory is that, in many places, real estate agent is one of the last decent viable jobs left for a huge swath of people (and I say this generally despising real estate agents, but I've had the fortune of working with a few gems), so the legal system is wary of going after them. In 2005 NAR got their friends in the TX legislature to pass a law limiting what discount brokers could do - regulatory capture at its finest, and most blatant: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4963797 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=496379.... IIRC the feds actually sued to overturn this law on antitrust grounds. I think they were successful but using Google to search for non-current events can be extremely painful so I gave up.
- philsnow 3y ago
  > NAR is such a cartel As some rando, I can't pay for access to the local MLS (or any MLS anywhere else). I could take some classes and get a Realtor™-brand (don't forget to pronounce it real-tore or they get huffy) License and get access that way, but what the hell?
hackernewds 3y ago
Realtors™ FTFY

imglorp 3y ago

I once sold my house without a realtor. I hired an excellent RE attorney to handle only the paperwork for a flat rate -- way less than a realtor who wanted a whole percent to do the same job. Some parts of the system grudgingly took my money without an agent, like title search and home insurance and the buyer's agent who still got their 3 percent. Best case, if you can get it, would be the buyer and seller meet up without the agents and each has an attorney to help with legal.

gumby 3y ago
That's great! Unfortunately, often real estate agents will refuse to show FSOB houses (at least unless the buyer asks explicitly) so that they take longer to sell, thereby showing the "value" of the seller's agents. Perhaps Redfin should drop a line to Lina Kahn at the FTC.
- hash872 3y ago
  Why would agents show a FSBO home for free? They're independent contractors on 100% commission, paying for their own health insurance and retirement- why would they work for free? Do you work for your employer for free? Buyers are free to find & view FSBO homes on their own, they can easily be found on Zillow and any other listing site. MLS even accepts FSBO listings for a flat $300 or so fee, no agent required
  - wbl 3y ago
    FSBO can pay a buyer agency fee also. The reality is that there is a cartel that props up the 3% to each side.
  - umeshunni 3y ago
    I assume they mean that the selling agent refused to show the house to someone without a buying agent.
    - gumby 3y ago
      There's no selling agent in a FSBO (For Sale By Owner). But the buyers' agents often boycott these houses because of course sometimes they are on the sales side.
      - setr 3y ago
        The buying agent’s 3% cut is paid by the seller; if there’s no selling agent, do the buyer’s agent still get their cut? I’m not really clear on why it’s structured that way in the first place — why doesn’t the buyer pay his own agent directly?
  - gumby 3y ago
    > Why would agents show a FSBO home for free? I'm talking about BUYERS' agents refusing to show FSOB homes to the buyers they represent because sometimes they are on the sell side so they don't want to encourage FSOB. If they did represent the buyer in buying an FSOB house they'd still get the buy side commission...a short term gain that would piss off all the other agents in town. In an FSBO there's by definition no seller's commission.
    - hash872 3y ago
      This whole idea is totally fake (and I'm not sure you get the difference between a FSBO where the seller is paying a buyer's agent, versus one where they're not). Real estate is a high-turnover job with a bunch of stressed-out independent contractors on 100% commission. They don't care what 'other agents in town' think of them, and there's no giant collusion or conspiracy going on. They're all just trying to close a deal so that they can pay their bills and buy groceries every month. I assure they are not colluding with each other
Johnny555 3y ago
Same - I bought my neighbor's house with a real estate attorney. It was a simple sale, no loan -- I called a real estate agent I'd worked with in the past to ask how much he'd charge to act as my agent, he said he'd go as "low" as 1.5% -- that'd be over $7,000 for basically filling out a few papers. The seller said I could use an agent if I really wanted to, but it's a waste of money. We ended up going to a local real estate attorney in town, and paid less than $1000 in fees for the whole transaction - didn't even use an escrow company, I handed the seller a personal check in the attorney's office. (biggest check I've ever written, had to write the numbers small to fit in the small box on my check!)
JeremyNT 3y ago
> Best case, if you can get it, would be the buyer and seller meet up without the agents and each has an attorney to help with legal. I did this years ago, and it all went well. There's a substantial opportunity for Redfin here if they can connect buyers and sellers directly and charge a reasonable fee for all the boilerplate involved. At the time there wasn't an infrastructure to find homes with this selling arrangement so it was literally a "for sale by owner" sign in the yard. I'm curious about the specific wording here: > NAR membership is required for agents to access listing databases, lockboxes, and industry-standard contracts Is it possible even in places with this regulatory capture for them to facilitate direct sales? Is it only NAR "databases" "lockboxes" and "contracts" that are unavailable to them, and if Redfin brings their own for both buyers and sellers they're in the clear? I think real estate agents do add some value, after all there are things about properties that you won't know just by looking at online listings and having somebody familiar with an area out there doing some legwork for you is indeed a real job, but it's certainly not commensurate with the 3% of the entire transaction they're extracting.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

God, NAR is such a cartel I'm so surprised they haven't been slapped down already. My theory is that, in many places, real estate agent is one of the last decent viable jobs left for a huge swath of people (and I say this generally despising real estate agents, but I've had the fortune of working with a few gems), so the legal system is wary of going after them. In 2005 NAR got their friends in the TX legislature to pass a law limiting what discount brokers could do - regulatory capture at its finest, and most blatant: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4963797 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=496379.... IIRC the feds actually sued to overturn this law on antitrust grounds. I think they were successful but using Google to search for non-current events can be extremely painful so I gave up.

philsnow 3y ago
> NAR is such a cartel As some rando, I can't pay for access to the local MLS (or any MLS anywhere else). I could take some classes and get a Realtor™-brand (don't forget to pronounce it real-tore or they get huffy) License and get access that way, but what the hell?

hackernewds 3y ago

Realtors™ FTFY